THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 49, Chapter 23
Back in Acts chapter 19 we read this:
Acts 19:21 CJB
21
Some time later, Sha'ul decided by the Spirit to pass through
Macedonia and Achaia and then go to Yerushalayim. "After I have been there," he said,
"I must visit Rome."
What we have been studying ever since then is the route, full of twists and turns, that will
indeed eventually bring Paul to Rome. Today in Acts chapter 23 we’ll continue to follow the
circumstances that would lead Paul to a city he says he “must visit”. Those circumstances are
of course invisibly God directed and orchestrated. In fact, in Acts 27 we read this:
Acts 27:23-24 CJB
23
For this very night, there stood next to me an angel of the God to
whom I belong and whom I serve.
24
He said, 'Don't be afraid, Sha'ul! you have to stand
before the Emperor.
It was important for Paul to go to Rome because it was important to God; I doubt that Paul had
any idea why it was so important. And no doubt when Paul first voiced his unction to visit
Rome, he thought it would be to evangelize the Gospel of Yeshua just as he had in so many
other cities of the vast Roman Empire. I’m certain that he expected to speak to Jews, in their
synagogues, in this great city. But as often happens with Believers, when we say yes to God
the outcome and the path to get to the goal can be significantly different from our wildest
expectations. Paul was going to stand before governors, kings, and even the Emperor;
something that was not on his agenda. However God never said that the circumstances that
enabled this audience with the powerful elite of the Roman Empire would be especially
pleasant. In fact, a prophet named Agav specifically told Paul that Jerusalem would be the
beginning point of his journey, but that it would be as a persecuted person under arrest and not
as one traveling as a welcomed emissary.
Why was Rome so important to God? Other than an opportunity for Paul to speak to the gentile
heads of Roman government about God’s plan of redemption and the purpose of the Jewish
people, we’re not specifically told. However in retrospect I think we can reasonably assume
that it had at least as much to do with the historical reality that within a few decades after
Paul’s martyrdom, with the Jerusalem Temple destroyed, the Jewish leadership of The Way
either dead or scattered, and gentiles finally in full control of the Jesus movement, the
headquarters of the gentile Christian Church would be in Rome. It is fascinating that the
gentile Christian Church institution would become situated at the capital and center of gentile
world government as envisioned by the prophet Daniel. And it would remain that way right on
through today, and will continue until Messiah returns to institute a theocratic world
government back in Jerusalem where it all began.
1 / 9

Let’s read Acts chapter 23 together.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 23 all
Paul is before the Sanhedrin defending himself against some vague charges of blasphemy;
although the Roman tribune who has custody of Sha’ul still isn’t sure exactly what it is that
Paul has said or done that has so many Jews in Jerusalem in such a homicidal mood. Here I’d
like to speculate that what we’re witnessing is not actually the common, everyday variety of
Holy Land Jews who want to tear Paul to shreds, but rather it is members of the party or
faction called the Zealots. The Zealots were Jewish super-nationalists; so they hated gentiles
with a passion, openly preached civil disobedience and revolt against Rome, and expected
every Jew to observe Halakhah (Jewish Law) down to the last detail as proof of their loyalty to
their Jewish heritage. An even more violent and murderous faction called the Sicarri were an
offshoot of the Zealots. I think it is probable that Christ’s traitorous disciple Judas was a
Zealot.
The point is this: it has been difficult for Jewish and Christian scholars alike to pinpoint exactly
what crime Paul had committed that these Jews were openly determined to kill him for, and
therefore what he was trying to defend himself against. We know that the accusation is more
or less that of blasphemy; but how or when, precisely, did Paul blaspheme? Thus in verse one
(to paraphrase) Paul says to the Sanhedrin that he has lived his life with a perfectly good
conscience before God. This brought on an instant reaction by the High Priest who ordered
someone standing next to Paul to strike him on the mouth.
We see two charges against him listed by Luke and both are discussed in Acts 21: first, James
says that Sha’ul is being accused by some Jews of teaching against circumcision (for Jews),
which is considered as a crime against Mosheh, and that he spoke against the Traditions.
Second is that a person on pilgrimage to Jerusalem from Asia (for the occasion of Shavuot)
says that Paul spoke against the Temple even bringing a gentile into the Temple thus defiling
the sacred building and its holy grounds. According to the Biblical Law of Moses, there is no
death penalty for teaching against circumcision or for not being circumcised. And Biblically
speaking it is not a capital crime to bring a gentile into the Temple courtyard area or to speak
against the Temple. But Jewish Tradition, especially that of the Judean Jews, had made it a
capital crime.
I have discussed with you in past lessons that it is vital, especially when reading and
interpreting Paul in Acts or in any of his letters, to understand that he uses the vernacular and
common speech of his day. Only rarely is Paul ever technical or highly academic or does he
offer minute nuances as he discusses the Torah versus Jewish Traditions and customs. So we
must carefully consider the circumstances when we get into these issues of accusations of
breaking the law, or speaking against the law, or when someone is accused of blasphemy. We
must always ask: who are the parties that are contending with one another? Who is being
accused and who is doing the accusing? Where is the scene of the action occurring (because
that also plays a significant role)? Blasphemy was not usually a technical theological term in
those days; it really was more of a nasty epithet thrown at someone who you strongly
disagreed with concerning doctrines of Judaism.
2 / 9

So the bottom line is that Paul had greatly irritated the super-nationalist Zealots (who were
easily irritated), and they stirred up many other Jews mostly because Paul dutifully took the
Jewish message of a Jewish Messiah who gave salvation and offered it to the hated gentiles.
And the Zealots’ response to most problems that raised their passions was to kill the person
they disagreed with and to characterize the deed as their pious obligation as defenders of the
God of Israel. But in reality they were not defending God’s Word, they were defending Jewish
Law, Halakhah, which had been formulated in the institution of the synagogue. They were
more defenders of manmade customs and traditions than actual Biblical commandments. And
this was because they were first and foremost, in these unbearable days of occupation by
Rome, defenders of Jewishness and all that it entailed. But Paul was seen as fraternizing with
the enemy, and so that made him a target.
While Christians have for centuries shaken our collective heads and heaved heavy sighs at
such a terrible attitude of the Jews towards gentiles and towards Christianity, let me point out
that Christianity stands at the head of the list when it comes to defending manmade religious
traditions and doctrines far more than defending what God commands in His Bible. Let’s be
honest about this: the reality is that long ago Christianity declared God’s Biblical commands as
null and void, so mostly what is left for the Church to defend is manmade doctrines and
traditions. But just as with the Zealots and other Jews in Paul’s day, Christians nonetheless
claim that these manmade doctrines and traditions so closely reflect God’s Word that they are
essentially one in the same. We are reading about the result of such a religious worldview here
in Acts 23, and it is endangering Paul’s life. It is the same religious worldview that drove the
Christian Crusades of a thousand years ago, the Inquisition of 500 years ago, and it drives the
fractious, casual and indifferent nature of the Church in modern times.
As a middle-aged former Catholic (who now holds to no faith at all) recently told me, for him to
consider a return to Christianity it would take a great modernization of Christianity so that it
would become relevant to him and to his family and to humanity in tangible ways. I told him
that I largely agreed with him and that is exactly what Seed of Abraham Ministries is all about.
It is only that the route to modernization of Christianity is an irony; the way forward is to go
back to our roots: our Hebrew roots. We must return to the perspective of the earliest days of
our faith when Yeshua walked this earth, and when Paul, Peter, and James led the Believing
community. Back to a time when the Holy Scriptures were the source of truth; when our
doctrines were at their purest, when holiness was pursued relentlessly, and when doing was as
important as being for followers of Messiah Yeshua.
As Acts 23 opens Paul is addressing himself to the members of the Sanhedrin; however it
doesn’t appear that this was a formal court gathering as much as an ad hoc council of inquiry
quickly assembled. Lysias, the Roman Commander, had ordered the Sanhedrin to question
Paul, so this was by no means a formal trial. In reality this council was there to ascertain
exactly what, if any, charges were to be brought against Paul so that Lysias could understand
what the hubbub was all about. Paul begins by not so much declaring his innocence (innocent
of what?), but rather he declared his loyalty to the God of Israel and therefore to his Jewish
heritage, reflected by a lifetime of proper behavior; thus his conscience was clear. It was a
general assertion about his character; not a denial of formal charges since at this point the
potential charges were still being ascertained.
3 / 9

Verse 2 says that the High Priest Hananyah (Ananias in Greek) instructed someone standing
next to Paul to hit him on his mouth for daring to assert his good character. It must be
understood that the point of hitting him in such a manner was to shame Paul. In the Middle
East then, as now, a male being struck on the face caused the recipient of the blow to lose his
honor; an extremely serious and volatile matter in oriental society. Paul turned and railed at the
High Priest and called him a whitewashed wall. The idea is that whitewash is a thin façade that
covers over the reality of what’s underneath it. And then Paul has the chutzpah to tell
Hananyah that God will strike him back, and this because the High Priest is supposed to be the
supreme authority on the Torah but here, before charges are made, before a trial, Paul is
treated as though he is guilty of something and essentially punished; something that the Torah
doesn’t permit. Some other men standing nearby rebuke Paul by saying how dare he speak to
the High Priest in such a way. Paul goes on to say that he didn’t know that this man was the
High Priest and quotes the Torah commandment that instructs that any ruler of the Jews
should be talked to with respect.
Although we could spend a long time dealing with the matter, I’ll make it fairly brief. What
about Paul’s words offended the High Priest? And how can it be that Paul didn’t know that
this man was the High Priest? Might Paul have caught himself and realized he had done wrong
in his insult, and so made up the flimsy excuse that he didn’t know that this man was the High
Priest? Modern scholars have wrestled so much with this that many are ready to throw out
Acts chapter 23 altogether as being so improbable that it doesn’t belong in the Bible. Others
have said that Paul did wrong, and he sullied his Apostolic credentials by reacting in such a
way towards the High Priest; as a Christian he should have accepted the shame and
responded with silence, usually citing Jesus as one who was even spat on but said nothing.
Interestingly when we check with the Scriptures we see that Yeshua had something similar
happen to Him as is happening to Paul. Let’s see how He responded to it.
John 18:19-23 CJB
19
The cohen hagadol questioned Yeshua about his talmidim and about what he taught.
20
Yeshua answered, "I have spoken quite openly to everyone; I have always taught in a
synagogue or in the Temple where all Jews meet together, and I have said nothing in
secret;
21
so why are you questioning me? Question the ones who heard what I said to them;
look, they know what I said."
22
At these words, one of the guards standing by slapped Yeshua in the face and said,
"This is how you talk to the cohen hagadol?"
23
Yeshua answered him, "If I said something wrong, state publicly what was wrong; but
if I was right, why are you hitting me?"
So Yeshua, speaking to the High Priest, certainly had something to say about being unjustly
struck. And like Paul He was struck on the face, which was intended to shame Him. Notice that
4 / 9

Yeshua doesn’t appear to have said anything against the High Priest anymore than Paul did.
Yeshua merely asked why they were questioning Him, while Paul only stated his own good
Jewish character. But in both cases this was seen as an affront to the High Priest. I believe I
can address this rather forthrightly. Yeshua was dealing with Caiaphas and Paul was dealing
with Ananias, the 8
th
High Priest to follow Caiaphas. Both men were illegitimate High Priests;
they were not of the proper lineage. They were wealthy and had paid large sums of money to
the Roman authorities for their positions. They were aristocrats, Sadducees, the highest class
of society who saw themselves as entitled and far better than common Jews. So for Yeshua
and now Paul to say anything before them or to them was an affront. And although it wouldn’t
hold true for Yeshua, Paul was a Pharisee; a direct competitor and antagonist to the
Sadducees. They inherently didn’t like one another.
So after Paul is hit on his mouth he spontaneously spews an insult towards this illegitimate
High Priest Ananias calling him a whitewashed wall; a fake, a phony. But then Paul seems to
back down when he is chastised for his retort by saying he didn’t know that this man was the
High Priest. First of all, the High Priest at all times was identifiable by his special garments; so
the thought that some scholars have that Paul had not been to Jerusalem in a long time, and a
number of High Priests had come and gone since his last visit, so he truly didn’t know what
the High Priest looked like, just doesn’t pass the smell test for me. Paul of course knew who
he was dealing with. I think Paul was only being Paul; he could be harsh and sarcastic on
occasion. He had no respect for this fake High Priest, and it is my contention that by saying he
didn’t know he was the High Priest it was a heavy dose of sarcasm. And in responding to the
others who chastised Paul for his strong words towards the High Priest, Paul quotes Exodus
22:27, but he does it in a way that essentially says that since one isn’t supposed to speak
disparagingly against a ruler, then the fact that he was brought to task for his words must mean
that this man is a ruler; but that’s the only way he’d know it because the High Priest certainly
doesn’t behave like a ruler. This entire exchange was tongue in cheek, a battle of wits. And
let’s always remember that Paul was just a man; he wasn’t perfect nor did he have Christ’s
perfect character or disposition. Perhaps by the letter of the law Paul sinned in his harsh words
to Ananias; but I see it as calling a spade a spade even if it might have been better left unsaid.
On the other hand, I’m a bit biased; I see Paul as a kindred spirit if not kindred temperament,
so maybe he just did what I think I would have done (and felt not a twinge of guilt over it) and
I’m rationalizing!
But now the clever Paul changes tactics; his sarcasm turns to artful calculation. Having served
on the Sanhedrin in some capacity in the past, he knows how they work and how they think.
And he is well aware of the animosity between its Sadducean members and its Pharisaical
members. So he announces himself as a Pharisee, even the son of a Pharisee, and throws out
the hot-button issue of resurrection from the dead like a piece of raw meat unexpectedly
thrown into a den of starving lions. In fact he frames the persecution he is undergoing on this
very issue. This instantly puts the Pharisees on the Sanhedrin in a bind; if they find fault with
Paul, then they must go against their own doctrines concerning resurrection. Immediately
there erupted a loud and heated argument between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. This is
because the Pharisees believed in the possibility of bodily resurrection from the dead, while the
Sadducees stood firmly against it. There were other strong differences as well. I’d like to quote
Josephus who explains the crux of the differences between the Sadducees’ and the
5 / 9

Pharisees’ theological doctrines, as they are quite instructional for those who study the New
Testament.
“Of the two first-named schools, the Pharisees, who are considered the most accurate
interpreters of the law, and hold the position of the leading sect, attribute everything to
Fate and to God; they hold that to act rightly or otherwise rests, indeed, for the most
part with men, but that in each action Fate cooperates. Every soul, they maintain, is
imperishable, but the soul of the good alone pass into another body, while the souls of
the wicked suffer eternal punishment……the Pharisees had passed on to the people
certain regulations handed down from former generations and NOT recorded in the
Laws of Moses, for which reason they are rejected by the Sadducean group, who hold
that only those regulations should be considered valid which were written down in
Scripture, and that those which had been handed down by former generations need not
be observed. And concerning these matters the two parties came to have controversies
and serious differences, the Sadducees having the confidence of the wealthy alone but
no following among the populace, while the Pharisees have the support of the masses.”
Every child attending Sunday School has heard of the Sadducees and the Pharisees. But it is
long past the time for us to shuck off such simplistic notions that one group was good and the
other bad. Paul was a Pharisee; in his own speech he describes himself as STILL a Pharisee.
So first off let us agree that Paul saw no discrepancy in being both a Pharisee and a Believer
in Christ. But let us also use what we have learned regarding the use of the term “law” in the
New Testament. Josephus says that the Pharisees were considered the most studied and
correct interpreters of the law; but then tells us that the Sadducees only accepted what Moses
had written down in the Scriptures and their doctrines were built on that alone. So what we
have here is that when Josephus employed the term law (nomos), he was referring to Jewish
law, Halakhah, and not to the Laws of Moses. He goes on to explain that the Pharisees
followed certain regulations NOT found in the Law of Moses (the Torah). And that the
Pharisees were accepted as the religious authorities of the vast majority of the masses of
common Jews. Why is that? It is because of the synagogue system that was led by the
Pharisees; a manmade alternative religious system (an alternative to the Temple), which
employed a large and growing volume of manmade traditions and doctrines as the primary
guide used to live-out their faith. Thus what the Pharisees believed is what the common
masses of Jews (both inside the Holy Land and in the Diaspora) were taught was the true
religion for the Jews. Later (well past New Testament times), this alternative religious system
of the synagogue was given a name: Judaism.
The Sadducees, wealthy aristocrats who were the Temple authorities and formed most of the
priesthood (the Temple and the Priesthood were the original God-made religious system of the
Hebrews), claim that they rejected the traditions that the Pharisees taught and the masses
adopted and instead they abided ONLY by the Torah (the Laws of Moses). On the surface that
sounds like the right thing to do. Of course the fact that the High Priest had for over a hundred
years become a ceremonial office open to the highest bidder, instead of being a hereditary
position according to a specific line descended from Aaron, and due to their brazen thieving of
the Temple treasury (and so much more offensive behavior) demonstrated the hypocrisy of
their claim of pious fidelity to the Laws of Moses. So this was the condition of the religion of the
6 / 9

Hebrews all throughout the New Testament era and this context is the lens through which we
must view every word uttered by Christ, Paul, Peter, James, Luke and all.
So armed with that understanding then we’re not surprised at the great uproar that erupts at
the Sanhedrin and the entire hearing devolves into a doctrinal brawl. Can’t you just picture the
bewildered Roman tribune Lysias standing there and observing the ruckus; he came here for
clarity from the best and wisest of the Jewish religious authorities about what it was that had
set off the riot against Paul and now the council that was supposed to sort this out has
dissolved into shouting and chaos (and no doubt in their native Hebrew language)? Lysias is at
a loss for even understanding the nature of the dispute he is witnessing. What choice did the
Pharisees on the Sanhedrin have at this point but to side with Paul, a fellow Pharisee, on the
doctrine of resurrection (which for Paul was at the heart of the matter for believing upon
Yeshua as the Messiah and Son of God)? In 1Corinthians Paul says this about resurrection:
1Corinthians 15:16-17 CJB
16
For if the dead are not raised, then the Messiah has not been raised either;
17
and if
the Messiah has not been raised, your trust is useless, and you are still in your sins.
The Pharisees declare: “We don’t find anything wrong with this man; and if a spirit or an angel
spoke to him, what of it?” Oh, and by the way, the Sadducees also didn’t believe in spirits or
that angels had any interaction with humans. Are you getting the picture here? This theological
warfare replaced whatever rational investigation Lysias was hoping for to figure out what Paul
might have done to warrant a mob of Jews wanting to kill him. In fact the Sanhedrin got so out
of control over the issue of resurrection that Lysias had to remove Paul from the scene before
any harm came to him. Somehow I think as Paul was escorted away he had just the hint of a
wry little smile upon his lips. Lysias has an unfixable mess on his hands; and when that
happens there’s only one solution: give it to your boss.
Verse 11 has Paul (still under arrest) ushered back to the barracks at the Antonia Fortress for
his own safety, when suddenly the Lord comes to Paul in his cell and tells him to take courage
because it is going to get a whole lot more interesting from here forward. Just as Paul has
borne witness to the Gospel of Christ in Jerusalem, God is going to get him to Rome to do the
same. What Paul had not realized before is that his passage to Rome would be as a prisoner.
When the Lord wills that something happens, it happens. And as much as the Lord loved Paul,
Paul’s discomfort was of secondary concern when it comes to God achieving His purposes.
This flies in the face of the modern Western Church’s prosperity doctrine whereby God’s
purpose is make His Believers comfortable, happy, safe and wealthy. And I urge you that if you
have been listening to any Preacher who teaches based on this doctrine that you turn away
from it because it is a self-serving lie that makes Preachers wealthy and will do nothing but
make you doubt your faith when loss of health, heartbreak or calamity eventually comes your
way as it does to all of us at some time or another.
The next day the frustrated Jews who wanted Paul dead weren’t about to give up. These
Zealots made a new plan to get the Romans to take Paul out of the fortress and even though
he will be escorted by a Roman guard, they plan on taking him and killing him. I think we need
7 / 9

to pause for a moment to grasp just how seriously dedicated these Zealots were. They knew
for certain that many of them would die or be injured or arrested and probably executed for
what they were planning to do. No doubt there would also be collective punishments of other
Jews by the Roman government for such a defiance of Roman authority. But they were so
passionate about defending their Jewishness, and about Jews (like Paul) consorting with
gentiles as being tantamount to treason, that it was worth it to them to trade their lives for his
death.
Starting at verse 12 we get some general details about this conspiracy as we learn that 40 men
will lead the attack to take Paul. They swore an oath that they wouldn’t eat or drink again until
they had accomplished their goal. They went to the High Priest and some others of the
Sanhedrin and told them of their plan because their cooperation was key to making it work. I’ll
point out the obvious: naturally they would not have gone to any Pharisees in the Sanhedrin
because they sided with Paul. So that is why they went to the High Priest; he was a Sadducee
and could control who got this information. The plot involves the High Priest sending a
message to Lysias to say that they want Paul to come back so that they could continue their
investigation. But on the short trip between the Antonia Fortress and the Hall of Hewn Stones
where the Sanhedrin met, the conspirators would fall upon the Roman garrison, steal Paul
away from them, and quickly kill him. Although it is not explicitly stated, clearly the High Priest
and the Sadducees who sided with him went along with this plan (just a further sad indication
of how corrupt and misguided the Jewish religious authorities had become).
In verse 16 we are introduced to a new character: Paul’s nephew, the son of his sister, who
apparently lived in Jerusalem. Here we learn a little about Paul’s family life, and as often
happens with a bachelor, he becomes close to a nephew as a sort of surrogate son. In some
unexplained way this nephew found out about this conspiracy against Paul and has the
courage to reveal it to the Roman tribune to save his uncle. The sudden appearance of this
unnamed nephew is yet another reason why many modern Scripture commentators feel that
the account of Acts chapter 23 is so suspect that it ought to be removed in part or in full from
the Book of Acts. One part of their discomfort with this nephew is just how he, assuredly a
rather young Pharisee, would get wind of what must have been a carefully guarded secret
known only to the Zealots, the High Priest, and few hand-selected Sadducean Sanhedrin
members. I don’t know why Luke doesn’t tell us more details about the incident. Perhaps he
could never ascertain how the nephew got his information; but that is no reason to disbelieve
the account. I can easily understand how if the Sadducee camp or even the Zealots had been
infiltrated by someone who fed information to the Pharisees, a chronicler of the event (like
Luke) would not have been told who the source was or how it happened; only what happened.
So there is any number of good reasons why Luke didn’t give us details regarding the
information about the plot that Paul’s nephew had obtained.
It is fairly clear that this nephew is a young person, probably a teen or in his early 20’s. He
must not have seemed very threatening or he wouldn’t have been allowed access to the
fortress to speak with Paul and then with Lysias. The nephew told his conspiracy story first to
his uncle and then to the Roman tribune. Lysias obviously believed the young man. Especially
after witnessing the almost irrational animosity and violent tempers flare even among the
members of the Sanhedrin, it was not a hard sell to imagine that the Zealots would try
8 / 9

something almost suicidal in order to kill Paul. Lysias told the young man to tell no one that he
had informed the Romans about it. It was time to get Paul away from here.
The commander quickly summons two centurions and tells them to get some foot soldiers,
cavalry, and spear carriers ready for a fast march to Caesarea Maritima, the provincial capital;
they would leave at the 3
rd
hour of the night. Although our CJB says that this is 9 p.m. it is likely
somewhat later. Remember, this all happened in conjunction with the Shavuot festival that
comes in early summer so the daytime would lasted until around 8 p.m. or so. The Romans
divided the day into two parts: daytime and nighttime, and then assigned 12 hours of daytime
and 12 hours of nighttime. So a Roman hour was only a division of time as opposed to a
standard measurement of time. Thus if we have, for instance, a summer day with 15 hours of
daylight but only 9 hours of darkness, then the 15 hours of daylight is divided into 12 parts, just
at the 9 hours of darkness is divided into 12 parts. Each of the 12 parts is called an hour even
though a Roman “hour” at night was of shorter duration than a Roman hour of daytime. And
the length of an hour would also vary day by day as each season produced more or fewer
daylight hours. Thus in the New Testament trying to ascertain a time according to our modern
clocks can be a bit daunting, especially when a Roman “hour” was not the same as a Hebrew
hour because the Hebrews divided their day differently than the Romans. Here it seems clear
that since this activity involved Romans, it was the Roman hour being used. So the 3
rd
hour at
night would have been somewhere between 11 and 12 midnight at that time of year, according
to modern time standards. Clearly Lysias didn’t want the Zealots to know that anything was
happening until after they were long gone. And from the large count of the soldiers that we are
given, the size of the contingency was sufficient to fight off the 40 Zealots even if they enlisted
additional comrades.
We’ll continue with Paul’s perilous journey to Rome next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9